Cost-effective safety treatments for low-volume roads.
-
2012-08-01
Details:
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Edition:Final report.
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:The majority of roadside safety guidance pertains to high-volume roads. Very little guidance exists to assist engineers in
treating common obstacles found alongside low-volume roads. In general, it is assumed that low traffic volumes can effectively
mitigate the risks associated with vehicle impacts into fixed objects and other geometric features to a point where they do not
significantly increase the accident costs relative to high-volume roads. However, a single crash on a low-volume road may result
in a fatality or a severe injury, effectively making low-volume roads competitive in severity scale with high-volume roads. As a
result, the possibility of a fatal or severe injury crash needs to be mitigated on low-volume roads.
Common roadside features were observed in a field study and included culverts, trees, slopes, ditches, and bridges. A
probability-based encroachment tool, known as the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP), was used to determine impact
frequencies and severities for each feature. Treatment options, like removing the fixed object or installing W-beam guardrail, were
considered for each feature. Finally, acceptable ranges in traffic volume were recommended for each safety treatment option. In
these recommendations, the “do nothing” option was often considered to be the most cost-effective safety treatment for the
existing configuration. However, this was not always the case.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
File Type:
Supporting Files
-
No Additional Files
More +